Much thanks to Malfael, Seven, fireparrot, GM, Falah, H and Sharky, and others for servitor discussions, answering questions, bouncing ideas off of, and/or reading over this. Also, much thanks to a few people in the multiple community who pointed out major ethical considerations.

Current version (0.95) finished on 2015-05-03. If you have read a previous version a long time ago, forget about it. It was terrible.

This guide is written primarily using the terminology of the tulpa community. Equivalent terms from other plural communities will sometimes be mentioned in parenthetical statements to make this guide understandable to a wider audience.

As has been said, "a servitor is like a tulpa but with no sentience and they are made like a tulpa, but made so that they do not deviate into having aspects one may attribute to a tulpa like a personality, sense of self, etc." But there is more to it than that. That's the short version. This guide is the long version.

What Is A Servitor?

A servitor (sometimes called a golem in other communities and classified as a type of fragment/shard in the multiple community) is a thoughtform, just as tulpas are. There are many kinds of thoughtforms such as puppets, tulpas, servitors, daemons, egregores, NPC's, etc. and some that blur the lines between categories (e.g. tulpa-daemons as described in this image by Falah) or just don't easily classify as any of them. Thoughtforms are things, machines, people, entities, constructs, etc. that one makes inside one's mind. If we want to get real technical, wonderlands (called inner worlds, headspaces in other communities) can be thoughtforms, but here in this guide we usually restrict the definition to individual things, machines, people, entities, and constructs that/who are animate (note, they do not need a form). To quote the glossary:

Tulpa.info Wiki Glossary Wrote:Servitor:

A tulpa-like entity with seemingly no willpower, volition or sentience of its own; a mental puppet that may seem to act independently but acts only as a servant to its creator.

In other words, a servitor is an automaton, robot, program, etc. that is made to perform one or more functions and tasks.

There is an everyday example of something that can sometimes be easy to turn into a servitor that many people already have. If you can type fast to the point where you no longer think about where the keys are at all (way beyond hunt-and-peck), you might easily be able to make a typing servitor. Or perhaps, if you merely think words and your hands automatically type them, you may already have one, or at least would have an easier time making one.

What distinguishes a tulpa and a servitor? They share a ton of traits with each other, which is evidenced by the definition. And it is easy to imagine a thoughtform that would be hard to categorize as either one. They are both autonomous, meaning that they live/operate without puppetting/parrotting, but differ in sentience, willpower, etc. It is then more accurate to think of them as opposite ends of a spectrum of autonomous thoughtforms. On the one end you have thoughtforms who are sentient and have a sense of self, a set of beliefs, try to find meaning in the world, have wants and desires, can choose their own goals, etc. We call the region on that end tulpas. On the other end you have thoughtforms which are not sentient and don't have a sense of self (note, they may still factually know what they are like WolframAlpha does if you ask it "what are you?" but that is different than sense of self), focus only on the tasks they are given and don't think of existence beyond that, essentially are the goal/s that they are given and can't choose their own, etc. We call the region on that end servitors. It is because of these traits that a servitor would be classified as a type of fragment/shard in the terminology of the multiple community. There is a lot of grey area in between the two ends of the spectrum. There isn't really a term for that region near the middle, either - maybe servi-tulpa (as neat as "tulpator" sounds, it isn't very descriptive and thus would make a bad candidate). A servi-tulpa could perhaps be described as semi-sentient.

While the servitor end of the spectrum is inherently not sentient and middle region semi-sentient, they can most certainly be complex enough to have some appearance of more sentience than they actually have, which could be called pseudo-sentience. The previously mentioned computer example would be WolframAlpha which knows what it is and can answer a variety of questions but is not actually sentient. Now, a group of servitors and/or servi-tulpas functioning together can, as a group, acquire a higher level of sentience and/or more convincing pseudo-sentience. Neguilla + Oxford and Dartmoth are a good example of this. Their combination exhibits more sentience and/or pseudo-sentience than they do individually.

Now, can a group of servitors functioning together achieve semi-sentience or full sentience while all individually remaining completely non-sentient servitors? That is a question worth further exploration. It is certainly possible for a large collection of non-sentient units to, when put together, make a sentient collection. Individual neurons, which are not sentient, can make a human brain that is sentient. Whether the same can be done with servitors is an open question.

Fundamentally, though, sentience itself is a hard to define concept as the debates here on tulpa.info forum have shown. Philosphers and scientists have had similarly difficult times. I would suggest you read around if you are interested in the topic.

Overview

In its simplest incarnation, a servitor is a thought repeater. It repeats a pattern of thoughts that are given to it to do. As an example, a timer servitor could do the thought process "estimate time elapsed from internal time sense until it reaches the value given to me, and then send alarm sound to whoever is controlling the body."

The way a servitor can be made depends to what extent you can make a thoughtform that is autonomous and just lives/works (called the "Just Make It Method" method here). If you can't do that, you have to do a brute force method. Both will be explained here. On average, the longer you or other inhabitants of your brain have been making thoughtforms, you have not been the only inhabitant of your brain (means you are plural), and/or you have had wonderland/s (also called headspaces and inner worlds); the less likely you will need to resort to a brute force method or if you do, the less brute force you will need to do. Most people are able to do the "Just Make It Method" or a combination of both methods eventually, so do try it first and try it again periodically rather than concluding that you cannot do it right off the bat. There is one step in common to all methods, which is deciding the servitor's Function/Task/Program. For a non-brute-force method, after that you just make it (will be explained more). The brute force method described here (note, there are other methods) has two additional steps. When doing this brute force method, all three steps have the following equivalences to the process of making a tulpa:

Decide Servitor's Function/Task/Program. This is equivalent to the process of deciding a tulpa's initial personality and traits before making the tulpa.

Puppet/Run Servitor Manually. This is equivalent to the early forcing of a tulpa and puppetting/parroting them to help them learn things.

Make Servitor Run Without Puppetting. This is equivalent to the stage in making a tulpa where they can actually act and do things without being puppetted/parroted and the gradual growing of autonomy.

Forms

A servitor does not innately have to have a form. That said, many kinds of servitors do need a form in order for them to carry out their function (a clock servitor could, in most implementations, be a good example). More importantly, even for a servitor that does not require a form for its function, having a form can offer very powerful symbolism to help in their creation process and also make it easier to stop/terminate the servitor. In the brute force method of this guide, steps 2 and especially 3 can become a lot easier to do with the symbolism that a form gives. By giving it a form, you start to consider it more separate and independent from yourself, thereby accelerating its development to operating on its own without puppetting. A form is often necessary when making a servitor by a non-brute force method.

[All Methods] Step 1. Decide Servitor's Function/Task/Program

In the short answer of how to make a servitor "You make a servitor like a tulpa, but with more puppetting and not allowing it to deviate.", this is the equivalent of deciding a tulpa's initial personality, form (optional), and traits.

In some ways, it goes without saying, you need to first figure out what functions and/or tasks you want your servitor to perform. But there is a catch. A servitor can only do those things that you or other members of your system (the other people living in your body) are capable of doing, though sometimes no one needs to know how to do them yet. So, if a servitor has those limitations, why bother making them. They provide automation. If the tasks are not fun things to do, a servitor will not complain where as a sentient being would. Also, one can make a servitor that does several things simultaneously that no one in the system is capable of doing simultaneously, even though those things can be done individually. Note, that in this case, the servitor generally has to be made with more limited functionality and then have more functionality added later.

Servitors can possess and eclipse (forms of cofronting/corunning), switch, be imposed (called projection in other communities), be vocal, communicate in thoughts, type, drive, dig through memory, help remember things, act as security software inside, and many many more things.

Then, you need to actually work out how to do these functions. If you are not doing the brute force method in this guide, you need to figure out how the servitor will do these things. Then, you need to figure out how you would do those functions and tasks manually yourself and develop the thought process required to do that. Remember, at its simplest, a servitor is a thought repeater.

One possible idea for making a servitor to follow certain instructions and be able to modify those instructions is to make a servitor that uses the symbolism of computer programming languages as is discussed in glitchthe3rd's Servitor Workshop It is not necessary, and may not even be desired, but some people have had success with it, so it is worth noting. The code is essentially thought processes for the servitor to do. Again, a servitor is a thought repeater.

Some examples of possible servitors are given below. This list is just the tip of the iceberg of what has been tried and what is possible.

Alarm clock

Typing servitor

Memory display so more than one person inside can look at a memory together

Wonderland error corrector (some people's wonderlands get errors in them that need correction)

Autopilot for some task or another with the body (see Words of Warning because one needs to be careful here)

Speech servitor (like the typing servitor but for speech so people inside wonderland can talk without possessing the voice or switching)

Heads Up Displays (HUD)

Specific memory rememberer

Ethical And Moral Considerations

Given that servitors and tulpas exist on a spectrum, certain ethical and moral issues come up. It is wrong to force another person (includes tulpas) do work for you merely because you don't want to do it. But it isn't wrong to make your computer do work for you (say, a calculation) that you don't want to do. A thoughtform that is all the way at the end of the servitor end of the spectrum is like the computer. But, as one gets away from that end of the spectrum closer and closer to the tulpa end, ethical and moral questions arise with making the thoughtform to do some task or another. What tasks and functions are wrong to expect a tulpa, host, or other sentient system-mate (most people are more familiar with the less generic term headmate) to do, but not a servi-tulpa who is closer to a tulpa? What tasks and functions are wrong to expect a servi-tulpa who is closer to a tulpa, but not a servi-tulpa who is closer a servitor? What tasks and functions are wrong to expect a servi-tulpa who is closer to a servitor, but not an all the way at the end servitor? For a given task or function, where on the spectrum must they be given a choice in whether they want to do it or not? If they can't choose or make an uninfluenced choice because they are too far towards the servitor end, what tasks and functions are ok to give and which ones are not? If the thoughtform moves around on the spectrum, as discussed in the "If They Develop Sentience And Become A Tulpa", when do they need to be given a choice of whether to continue the task or function? To what level is it right or not to try to keep a servitor from sliding in the tulpa direction to prevent this conundrum?

How does this apply to groups of servitors, servi-tulpas, and/or tulpas functioning together as a group and thus have more sentience than they do individually?

There is some similarity here to the discussion of what types of medical testing are OK to do on cells, insects, fish, rats, apes, and humans.

An often given tip with servitors is to build in a kill switch to make them easier to stop. There are ethical and moral considerations here as well. For a completely non-sentient servitor, is it right to give the servitor a kill switch? For a tulpa, most people (including myself) would say it is wrong to give one. What about a servi-tulpa (I personally think it is wrong here too)? Also, servitors and servi-tulpas can move towards the tulpa end of the spectrum and become more sentient as discussed later in this guide. Given that an initially non-sentient servitor could one day become a tulpa, possibly on their own accord, is it right to build a kill switch into a servitor? I suggest reading about the topic of "tulpa dissipation" in the tulpamancy community and "killing headmates" in the wider plurality community for further reading on this theme.

[Just Make It Method] Step 2. Just Make The Servitor

If you have the ability to just imagine up things in your wonderland, you can imagine up the servitor and see if it just starts working.

If you don't have the ability to imagine up things in your wonderland, your servitor might be such that it can just be made from component parts like you would make a computer or an alarm clock from its components. Build the servitor and see if it just starts working.

If neither of these methods work or are possible, you have to go on to a brute force method to get them working. If they work just a bit, you might be able to tinker with them or use some of the brute force method techniques to get them working.

The idea in this method is that either your will that the servitor works is enough to get it going, or the rules of physics for your wonderland are ingrained enough that a servitor constructed from the right parts (assuming the servitor is of a type where this would even make sense) will work just like a machine in outerworld (the physical plane, place not in wonderland, sometimes called RL, etc.) would. This is why this method is more likely to work for those who have been plural for a long time, have had a wonderland for a long time, and/or have been making thoughtforms for a long time.

[Brute Force Method] Step 2. Puppet/Run Servitor Manually

In the short answer of how to make a servitor "You make a servitor like a tulpa, but with more puppetting and not allowing it to deviate.", this is the puppetting stage.

With the thought processes that you developed that the servitor needs to do, start running them manually. The idea is to do it enough times that it becomes automatic, much like can learn to do things by muscle memory. You will have to do all the functions and tasks the servitor is supposed to do in the sequence (or with the algorithm) that you want the servitor to do them in. If it has a form, then you need to puppet its form too. It needs to be run a lot. You need to get to the point that you can run it very reliably without errors. If you deviate the way you run it, the changes will be incorporated into the servitor. This could take a long time, feel like a lot of work because it can be, feel really silly (why am I thinking the same thing over and over to myself) much like how parroting a tulpa feels like talking to yourself. As a general rule, the more complicated the servitor, the longer this will take.

Having a form to puppet can help make it feel less like you are just thinking the same thing over and over again to yourself, and can help with achieving the next step quicker due to symbolism.

[Brute Force Method] Step 3. Make Servitor Run Without Puppetting

In the short answer of how to make a servitor "You make a servitor like a tulpa, but with more puppetting and not allowing it to deviate.", this is stage where it starts to operate without puppetting.

This is perhaps the hardest step, and paradoxically easy and difficult to explain. The servitor needs to start operating correctly when you turn off the puppetting, instead of stopping dead in its tracks or doing its functions and tasks incorrectly. This will be a gradual process. At first, it might stop quickly. Later, it will take a while to stop. Later, it might stop if you start thinking about something else or it will operate slowly or skip a step or something. There usually is not a sudden jump from it not being able to operate at all without puppetting to being completely autonomous and operating error free. This is just like how tulpas tend to develop sentience and independence gradually.

In the previous step, you were executing the thought processes required to do its functions and tasks. Now, those same thought processes must separate from you and run independently as opposed to stopping or malfunctioning. If the servitor has a form, it may not feel like this is what you are doing, but it essentially is this, but masked by the symbolism that the form brings in. If it is formless, you will be well aware that you are doing the thought processes and getting ever better at doing them accurately and automatically. This is exactly what has to separate from you. Those thought processes that are yours become the servitor which is then no longer you. It is in many ways akin to cell division in biology, but a very unequal division.

Now, it is possible that in doing step 2, of running it many times, it may be well on its way to separating from you naturally without you having to do anything. If it has a form, this is common and it just happens. But if it is not separating on its own or hasn't separated enough, that is when the process becomes difficult and you have to cause more separation to get it to the point where it will do the rest naturally. If you can, get good enough to run its thought processes manually well enough that you can do it while doing other activities. At that point, it is pretty close to separate and may do the rest itself.

If it still isn't separate and able to run on its own, you are going to have to push. You need to treat the servitor as if it is separate from you, even though it isn't yet. This is exactly why having a form can help so much. Since it has a form, it feels separate to you and it is easier to treat that way. This helps the same way as the " treat a tulpa as sentient at the start" tip for making a tulpa does, though in the case of a tulpa it is more than just helpful - it is polite and respects them as people as they steadily fill those shoes without treating them as less than they are (better to treat them as more than less). If it was a formless servitor, giving it a form at this point could help. If it has a form already or you don't want to give it a form (or a form would hurt its functionality), you will have to resort to something else or just keep running it manually for a long time and let it happen automatically. Perhaps, build a mental wall between it and yourself. Never tried it, but it seems like it might work.

If you still can't get it to separate and run without puppetting, another thing you can do is make the servitor simpler by reducing its functionality and the tasks it performs. What you took away can be added back later.

Note that with formless servitors, after separation, you may have thought bleed, where you hear the thought processes of the servitor as it runs. It is running on its own, but you hear its thought processes. Because you separated it from yourself, it is reasonable that thought bleed could happen. It may fade with time, or you will have to do something to insulate the servitor from yourself.

Adding Functions And Tasks to An Existing Servitor

While still letting it just run with its existing functions and tasks, you do one of the servitor methods for the new functions and tasks you want the servitor to perform. The servitor is already operating and separate from you, so it should be easier generally to incorporate them into the servitor than make a servitor in the first place with those same exact functions and tasks. If you made the servitor by a brute force method, it is possible that you might now be able to use the "Just Make It Method" to augment it.

Stopping/Terminating A Servitor

There are several ways to stop a servitor. First, it/they may be sentient enough to be reasoned with and convinced to stop. The further the thoughtform is from the servitor end of the spectrum, the more likely this is doable. Just as the first approach to dealing with a tulpa or host one has problems with is to talk to them and try to reason with them, try to reason with the servitor or servi-tulpa first. You could also push it further down the spectrum towards being a tulpa as described in the next section to make this easier. If these methods don't work, more forcible methods are necessary. In the spirt of the "Just Make It Method" of making a servitor, the servitor might simply stop if you tell it to stop, try to imagine it stopping, etc. Given that you now have more experience with thoughtforms than you did when you made it, this will often work even if you had to make the servitor by a brute force method. After that, another method would be to take advantage of any stop condition in its programming if it has one and it still works (basically an expansion on the method of telling it to stop). If these don't work or aren't possible, the next thing to try is some form of symbolism. If you gave it one, you could activate/trigger a kill switch, which is a form of symbolism. If it does not have a kill switch but has a form, you can try what you would do to stop a physical machine (break, smash, etc.) or use any other abilities you can do in wonderland (e.g. disintegrate, remove from existence, etc.). Now, if it doesn't have a form or it is effectively immortal (you vaporize it and it rebuilds itself and resumes its function), it is much harder to destroy. You might try giving it a form and then destroy it.

In the unlikely event that none of the previous methods worked, one very reliable way to stop and terminate a servitor, which works regardless of whether it has a form or not, is to absorb it. That is basically merging with it, but since you have sentience and it does not, it is highly asymmetric making it more an absorption. Merging/absorption generally requires symbolism to be even remotely easy to accomplish. A simple form is to simply pull the servitor's form into your own form/wonderland body. If it doesn't have a form, you could try to pull its essence (whatever that is) out of nowhere and coalesce it in your wonderland and then pull that into your form. The stronger and more advanced the servitor, the harder it will be to absorb. Also, for a very strong servitor, who you are after the absorption might change a bit. I used to be an integrated multiple, meaning that I was merged with my system-mate, and while I was dominant, our combination was notably different than me. With a servitor, the change should be much much smaller.

If it does not have a kill switch or a physical form that can be destroyed without it getting back up and resuming what it was doing, you could be in real trouble if you need to stop or destroy the servitor. For some people, absorption is easy, but for others, it is nearly impossible. Note that different people living in the same body may have differing abilities to absorb a servitor, so if you have system-mates but you can't absorb the servitor, they might be able to. If you want more information on this topic, I would suggest you read about it in the multiple community where it is called integration, fusion, and merging depending where.

If They Develop Sentience And Become A Tulpa

What does a servitor become if it does gain sentience? They become a tulpa. Basically, they slide along the spectrum from servitor to tulpa. If a servitor does this, they become their own person, and should be treated as such from that point on, as you would any other sentient being.

Some people have reported that the servitors they make can gain sentience on their own and become tulpas. Others have only had this happen with very advanced servitors. Others haven't had it happen even with very advanced servitors. It varies considerably, and also depends on your expectation to some extent. If you expect your servitors to gain sentience on their own, they are considerably more likely to do so. If you don't expect them to do so, they might still but are less likely, or might hide it. You shouldn't presume that they will become sentient tulpas, or that they would not.

Time for a bit of a philosophical interlude. There is no reason to think there is a brain constraint keeping servitors from gaining sentience. So, an open question is what predispositions servitors might have towards becoming tulpas. One could imagine that if a servitor's function and/or efficiency would be improved by moving along the spectrum towards tulpa, they might. Or they might not. Is it like the android or robot in futuristic movies who does tasks over and over again without emotions and steadily adapts to their situation till they want to find meaning in their life, explore themselves, and grow? Or is it it like that in only some cases? And even if there is a predisposition towards becoming sentient, the timescale could be so long as to be irrelevant.

As an anecdote, I have had none of my servitors, even the advanced ones that were really hard to destroy, break free of their programming, gain sentience, and become tulpas.

Of course, one can deliberately turn servitors into tulpas or otherwise move them towards the tulpa end of the spectrum. This can be done by doing personality forcing on the servitor until they become a tulpa or gradually pushing a servitor beyond its functionality and force them to grow, much like how you get a tulpa to grow beyond what they were originally assigned to be. Watchdog 1 gave a good description of the latter.

Words of Warning

Servitors can be healthy compliments to your life, conveniences, curiosities, or dangerous. And when I say dangerous, they can be really dangerous. They are automatons that blindly follow their functions and tasks, regardless of the consequences and whether it is wise to do so or not. Unlike asking another sentient being to do something, a servitor will not question the instructions you gave it and will follow them to the very end.

Think very carefully about servitors that can write and/or modify memories, possess (type of co-fronting), switch, modify thoughts of other members of the system (group of beings living in the same body), are formless, don't have a kill switch, etc. Safe servitors can certainly be made with these abilities or attributes, but one does have to be more careful when making such servitors because there is the potential for damage.

I say this from experience, being that all of the most advanced servitors I ever worked on were unhealthy, harmful, or outright dangerous. I am giving this warning as a fool who could have used the warning myself. They had no kill switches and were all formless, making them very hard to stop. The one that did the most damage took two whole weeks to stop, and in its 1.5 months of operation, it had scrambled up my memory pretty badly (that was part of its functionality, actually, which was really foolish), caused considerable emotional confusion, etc. I only just recently figured out how to terminate my emotion dampeners I made 10 years ago. I lost 10 years of having my full emotional capacity due to my stupidity long ago. Thankfully, I never completed the most dangerous servitor idea I ever had. I can have dark thoughts, so I was afraid that I was a dangerous person and began working on a servitor that would, among other preventions, take control of the body and commit bodily suicide if my thoughts got too dark. Rather than actually working on my dark thoughts and realizing that thoughts do not imply action, I tried to make a servitor that could actually KILL me. I go into a little more detail about my dangerous servitors in this post.

There is also the possibility of excessive escapism in the case of servitors that can control the body. Is it healthy to have all of life's unpleasant tasks handled by servitors?

Now, most servitors that people make are safe. I am the exception rather than the rule. So be careful, but remember there is no need to be paranoid.

Coming Full Circle

Now you have the long answer to the often given short answer "a servitor is like a tulpa but with no sentience and they are made like a tulpa, but with more puppetting so that it does not deviate." of how to make a servitor. The world of servitors is very large, with many types of servitors not yet attempted. Be creative, be safe, explore new ground, and have fun.

Great guide. It has a clean layout and is very organized. I actually had been considering making a servitor or two but couldn't find a reliable source of information. Considering your various experiences with servitors, I'll be bookmarking this for later. I suggest, (unless you left this out intentionally) maybe listing a few ideas a newbie to servitors could try? Nonetheless, I should I say I approve the submission, right?

Me: So, talk to me about why I'm your dream boy.
Him: This is going to be a short conversation.
Me: Ha, ha, ha! That's so mean!

Overall, I approve of this submission for guides for the methodologies behind it, but before really doing that, there’s a few parts I want to pick out.

(TL;DR at the bottom)

OP Wrote:There is an everyday example of a very common near-servitor that many people have. If you can type fast to the point where you no longer think about where the keys are at all (way beyond hunt-and-peck), you actually are not that far from having a typing servitor. Or perhaps, if you merely think words and your hands automatically type them, you already have one.

I can understand that you’re getting people to realize that they can tie in day-to-day things we may do that happens unconsciously (e.g. typing, or anything that’s shifted into unconscious competence) in creating a servitor for those roles, but the last statement seems a bit too ambitious. In other words, instead of having “and your hands automatically type them, you already have one,” you could go for “and your hands automatically type them, you may already have one.”

I know it’s just one word addition, and it may not make all the difference, but to people trying to set distinctions between what are unconscious predispositions, habits, and such that we build after developing their competency for certain skills, it might be confusing for them to speculate if all unconscious competencies they may have are innately servitors from the get-go (especially since you emphasized on "innateness" behind servitors not being there in the first place). This last statement of yours may imply things like panpsychism, i.e., everything material to whatever degree can have an individual consciousness; in this circumstance, anything where someone can do something automatically seems to have already conferred intelligence to some section in their brain as their servitor all of a sudden.

From the standpoint of instilling methodologies for self-fulfilling prophecies, this statement of yours would be useful if we presumed the audience was open-minded, and knew everything you stated were based from presumptions and experiential cases. Because the more they tie in their skill set as something that can be connected to building a servitor, it’s just a matter of them learning some rudiments with possession and switching, finding their personal symbolic meaning in how their servitor can do something like this, and going through iteration loops with practice until breakthroughs occur.

But to someone outside of the tulpa communities in general, you know they’ll be demanding proof if we inherently have servitors for certain competencies we have, and other cognitive functions. It’s just from that one word, “may,” that you could add to the statement that could make the difference in you using metaphorical representations as a tool to supplement your submission rather than it being something assumed to be engrained in everyone who has some skill sets.

Quote:
It is important to note that servitors operate autonomously when complete, which means they no longer require puppetting/parrotting to operate. It is autonomy that separates servitors, tulpas, and daemons from puppets. Tulpas and daemons are sentient, while servitors are not. What distinguishes tulpas from daemons, ignoring differences caused by beliefs and traditions in the two communities, is that tulpas are more separate/independent from the host than daemons. In the terminology of the multiple community, daemons are in median-like topologies with their hosts while tulpas are in multiple-like topologies with their hosts.

Although I am aware that everyone is going to have their own definition behind the ontology of tulpa, i.e., the nature of their existence, and what makes them, them, I’m not sure this paragraph of yours is really making a “distinction,” or even a “dichotomy” between daemons and tulpas, tulpas and servitors, and such. If anything to add on to the ad hoc claim of yours of what distinguishes a tulpa from a servitor is using the “thought repeater,” as your supplement in emphasizing that distinction.

For example, some premises that could distinguish a tulpa from a servitor is that the host continues to sustain the belief that their tulpa can have what would be implied sentience to where they can conceptualize a sense of self, a schemata of beliefs with morals, ethics, and typical things that would come with a sentient being that can creating symbolic meaning in the reality they exist, and can be aware of. While a servitor is an entity, like you mentioned, repeating a thought, and deriving themselves from certain skill sets, patterns, and such, and making a connection with them to achieve certain goal(s); they fixate more time potentially honing cognitive functions and tasks rather than validating their existence through things like personality, sense of self, and other things a purpose-meaning agent would speculate on.

In the “Overview,” you did mention how certain processes can be equivalent in making a tulpa, but if anything, it seems to make a connection between how they seem to be one in the same, albeit with the host believing they’re conferring pseudo-sentience rather than the implicit sentience they actively want to feel is a quality of the thought-form. For the sake of reducing iteration loops, i.e., learning concepts, and finding ways to cycle them around through circumstances in the development of tulpas and servitors, this would be a nice comparison for newcomers at first glance.

But if they’re trying to integrate this into practice, we could dive deeper and speculate potential conflicts they may have. One is that they may think “oh servitor is this, tulpa is that,” but then they see that “a tulpa can be this, but a servitor can attribute some qualities of a tulpa as well,” i.e., there seems to be several exceptions that makes the distinction harder when trying to analyze it from an objective standpoint.

Another concern is finding a consistent, and relative distinction between pseudo-sentience, and actual sentience we believe to be “true,” “real,” etc. I bring this up simply because of constant threads questioning things like:

- “How do I know that they’re truly sentient?”
- “What makes a tulpa, a tulpa?"
- “What makes them different from imaginary friends?”
- “Can I make a servitor a tulpa?” (and vice versa)

In other words, your submission is good for the sake for others to create a conceptual roadmap to potentially create a servitor, but the philosophical implications while they’re going through that journey may be problematic. Of course, I can’t expect your submission to be the end-all, be-all submission on creating servitors. But it’s just raising awareness to how even though we have general definitions on something like a servitor, and a tulpa, there will always seem to be someone that will have a different opinion. This is more of giving you insight if you wanted to augment your expositions, because I feel finding those distinctions, even if they’ll be ad hoc claims, is what will strengthen your submission.

OP Wrote:In the short answer of how to make a servitor "You make a servitor like a tulpa, but with more puppetting and not allowing it to deviate.", this is the equivalent of deciding a tulpa's initial personality, form (optional), and traits.

Someone could question, “Deviating to what?” Something you could use is saying something like:

“And not allowing it to deviate into aspects one may attribute for a tulpa (e.g. personality, traits, and a form that’s more complex than simple forms you instill symbolic meaning to a servitor)." I know we can see the distinctions here, and this suggestion of mine may just be redundant, but I’m looking at it from the standpoint of someone diving deeper into what’s being given to them.

OP Wrote:So, if a servitor has those limitations, why bother making them. They provide automation. If the tasks are not fun things to do, a servitor will not complain where as a sentient being would. Also, one can make a servitor that does several things simultaneously that no one in the system is capable of doing simultaneously, even though those things can be done individually. Note, that in this case, the servitor generally has to be made with more limited functionality and then have more functionality added later.

This is good in settling those distinctions in what you believe makes a servitor, and what makes a tulpa (e.g. a servitor not being predisposed in reacting emotionally to the difficulty of certain tasks a tulpa may react to in various ways)

In the “If They Develop Sentience,”

OP Wrote:If you expect your servitors to gain sentience on their own, they are considerably more likely to do so. Just remember, gaining sentience is not something that is innate to servitors.

This begs the question(s):

- If we’re conferring pseudo-sentience to a servitor, and are willing to go through a self-fulfilling prophecy in treating them as pseudo-sentient entities capable of thought repetition, and potentially augmenting efficiency in everyday tasks and cognitive skills we have unconscious competence of, what makes our brain constrain the servitor from wanting to deviate more and more?

- What if our mind sees qualities of a tulpa that could potentially make the thought repetition more efficient if things like having a sense of self, creating solace in the meaning of their existence, and other attributes a servitor is presumed to be absolved from servitors?

- Are they inherently predisposed to want to gain sentience in the circumstance similar to how one would treat a tulpa as a sentient entity the more the host wants to sustain the self-fulfilling prophecy for their servitor?

While you’re giving a decent exposition that one shouldn’t presume that servitors innately want to have sentience, you’d also, paradoxically, have to question what that servitor would speculate for the sake of improving the thought repetition if they see certain qualities of tulpas that are distinct from them (servitors) as beneficial. In other words, one could bring up the ad hom claims that the more advanced the servitor becomes, the more likely they may associate patterns in the mind to find some way to have sentience conferred to them. It also makes one question if servitors should be used for a transient period of time rather than having one that sticks by you for a long time to reduce the probability of them wanting to gain sentience, implicitly or not.

It’s like watching those futuristic movies where an android, or robot seems to be someone that can do tasks over and over without emotions, but the more they seem to adapt to circumstances (ignoring if the programmer made a system for them to be emotional), the more they may want to find meaning in their existence, and questioning if wanting to be more human can make them perform things better, and potentially find fulfillment in what could be their already determined existence.

In short, it seems that even if there isn’t empirical evidence, the presumptions and underlying theories themselves seem to support the ad hoc claim that a servitor could very well have innate predispositions to gain sentience, but may be hiding it from the host to sustain the neutral persona, or whatever symbolic form they subscribe meaning into. What if that servitor someone questions how much they have to constrain themselves to those means of symbolism? What if they suddenly go through existential questioning like a tulpa does?

It seems the more one goes further and further, the dichotomies become blurred at some point. But again, this is merely me exchanging a mélange of theories and presumptions, and is just for the sake of bringing awareness on the aftermath a newcomer may face after diving into making a servitor. And even though it’s safe to presume servitors are not inherently sentient when it comes to some long-lasting objective meaning outside our cognitive horizon, this seems to be suitable in the perspective of what the host wants to believe, but I guess that thinking is what we may want to avoid so we can actually accomplish making something like a servitor, or someone like a tulpa, i.e., do it now, and question later.

--

TL;DR/Recap:

- I feel that although you’re attempting to settle distinctions between a servitor and tulpa, and even covered how one could assess a servitor gaining sentience after becoming advanced and complex enough, the distinctions seemed to be a bit blurred, and may cause paradoxical thinking and what have you.

Most of my critique is based on the aftermath, or what the newcomer, or anyone of any level attempting this may face. But for the methodology of the submission in general, I would approve. But because of the philosophical implications behind all of this, I’ll just wait for other GAT members to offer their opinions because I’m not sure if we’re a team that also tries to stabilize how one can map out their philosophy and morals with tulpas and servitors.

Approved as is. Linkzelda does have some good points though. As for me, the only thing I would change is this:

Quote: If one asks what is a servitor and how does a person make one, the general answer is "a servitor is like a tulpa but with no sentience and they are made like a tulpa, but with more puppetting so that it does not deviate.". That answer is indeed correct, but there is more to the answer than that. It is the short answer. This guide is about the long answer.

It's just a bit awkward. There are lots of ways to fix that, but I'd personally word it more like this:

Quote: As has been said, "a servitor is like a tulpa but with no sentience and they are made like a tulpa, but with more puppetting so that it does not deviate." But there is more to it than that. That's the short version. This guide is the long version.

Linkzelda and Sushi, on the small wording changes you suggested, I think your suggestions are good.

Linkzelda, I can see now the issues you brought up. I am going to do some thinking for a couple days and make some changes (might be more than some, actually). I think doing a bit of work on it in this regard will make it a lot better and more useful guide to both the person new to any of this sort of stuff and the person who already knows a bit of tulpamancy and wants to make some servitors.

- Hail

Tri = {V, O, G}, Ice and Frostbite and Breach (all formerly Hail), and others
System Name: Fall Family
Former Username: hail_fall
Contributor and administrator on a supplementary tulpamancy resource and associated forum, Tulpa.io and Tulpa.io/discuss/.

This one actually was a bit tricky, I gotta tell you that. Nothing is like, horribly, horribly wrong and it's a much better and less symbolic servitor guide that Glitch's, so I believe this is going to be the servitor guide that gets approved in the end. I won't be rating this just yet as I think there are a couple of things you should still consider and Linkzelda already has given you some food for though, but here's my two cents.

You have broken the creation of a servitor into three steps and make it sound like this is the basic thing, the simplest it can get. It's good to first go simple and basic and explain people what everything is based on, yes. However, like Glitch, I think you have overcomplicated it a bit. After all, your mind is not a computer or a machine and neither is a servitor. You don't need to "program" them – and in your case, by programming I mean puppeting and parroting. These, I say, are just symbolic ways of making yourself to accept that your servitor does the deed you want it to. Useful, yes. But not necessary.

I don't need to be programmed to accept that this pill a doctor gives me is going to make me feel better even if it doesn't actually have such properties. I accept it because I have a reason to think it's true, so it works. Our mind is a very powerful tool and it's capable of making some really weird things happen even when there's no actual reason for it. I don't think you need to remove your talk of using puppeting, no. In fact, you should keep it as in "this is the way we are going to create a servitor in my guide" kind of way. But what I would like is acknowledgment that a servitor only really needs your will and want, and if you truly can accept it happening with your thought alone, it would happen. I would also like you to say that puppeting and parroting aren't necessary to create one, but they can be useful tools which is why you are presenting them to us and it's just one method.

Similarly, I feel like there are some other things you might want to mention to help people. You did mention how believing that a servitor might become sapient is when they actually might start developing that way and you also warned people about how they can go bad. That sure is the power of the mind, which is why you might want to tell your readers that they have a lot of power over mental things. I don't think you made it as obvious, but there's some sentences that really could help people, like say... "This servitor will only do what I want it to do" or maybe "this servitor will stop when I want it to". It's a really simple thing, but if you can accept such things as a fact inside your mind, you do find how it ends up being the reality. If you are scared of your servitor doing bad things or how you can't stop it, you might truly end up being powerless. But if you go in with the knowledge that you can do things and you don't need symbolism ("breaking" their imaginary form) to stop them, as they are mental things you can of course, stop with your own mind. Tell people that they have the power!

It's funny how you say that destroying their imaginary form or using some sort of a "kill switch" isn't symbolism, when those are symbolism. I think you are making these things more complicated than they really are yet at the same time underestimating the power a human mind has. There's a reason why hypnosis works and why placebo and nocebo are things, not to mention other weird things people can do when they have the right mindset. I think you should really tap into that.

Again, wouldn't be a Sands review if I didn't point your use of the word subconscious. It's a nonsense word and the way you talk of me and my subconscious, you make it sound like some mysterious entity to which I roll my eyes and you have alienated a reader. We have our unconscious thoughts, fears and desires, but I do not think they can be lumped together into this one single entity that is OOOoooOOooo not uuuusss. Try to read those parts where you talked of "you and your subconscious" and try to figure out what you really mean. Test yourself, can you write the same sentences without using the word subconscious? Just unconscious is also banned, as if you just replace the word subconscious with unconscious, you will just create the same problem with another word. What is it that you mean?

Quote: You have to believe this to be the case, even though it isn't yet. This is exactly why having a form can help so much. Since it has a form, it feels separate to you and it is easier to believe that it is indeed separate. This is the same sort of self-delusion and self-fulfilling prophesy at work in the "assume a tulpa is sentient at the start" tip for making a tulpa.

That tulpa-making tip is actually a really bad one and one I have seen ruin many hosts and potential tuppers. There is a reason why a thread had to be made to explain that they didn't mean assume the tulpa is sentient, but rather that you should treat them as if they were such. Belief is a strong thing, but healthy people tend to be skeptical. That's a good thing. Telling them to just believe or assume is a bad thing when creating tuppers, and I'd see the same thing being a bad thing here, too. You see, when you try to build something on blind faith and for some reason, one day you start doubting this blind faith... If you have nothing else to fall on, your entire little shaky tower collapses. I feel like instead of these wow just believe tips, you could tell us of things that show us how we're separate. Even little things like wondering if it was me or them comes from somewhere, as we normally don't doubt the source of our own actions, do we? How do you realize it's the servitor and not you?

I think this could also do with less words from other non-tulpa communities like system or co-fronting, but at least you have explained them and tried to use the words of this community first as far as I can see. I feel like you're probably trying to (or have) post this in many communities?

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Sands Wrote:t's a nonsense word and the way you talk of me and my subconscious, you make it sound like some mysterious entity to which I roll my eyes and you have alienated a reader. We have our unconscious thoughts, fears and desires, but I do not think they can be lumped together into this one single entity that is OOOoooOOooo not uuuusss.

Sands, I’m interested in why you feel anyone using the word subconscious, or even unconscious as a metaphorical representation of how people may conceptualize how the mind works is always conflated to some metaphysical entity in our heads? Is that your only means of referring to those words? Because if so, it seems very limited, but I won’t question why you absolved further symbolic associations on a concept that’s always seem to have some debate.

The reason why I asked for your opinion is that it’s clearly obvious that people use these metaphorical words loosely, and one reason is simply because trying to explain things beyond what goes on in our heads would imply something metaphysical and supernatural. So we’re ultimately at a dead-end when trying to make things plausible, even though knowing everything is considered an ad hoc claim until there’s some empirical foundations aimed to support it, and actually find something that could be considered “proven” in establishing whatever development with a thought form would be more difficult; be it a servitor, or a tulpa.

The thing is, the moment you used those words as “banned,” it automatically makes me presume which audience you’re speaking from. Scientist that had their own dogmas of what’s right and wrong in trying to conceive a knowable world? Scientists that actually use the scientific method as a learning curve when it comes to justifying and making conclusions on usage, or ban of certain terminologies? A four man circle jerk in an IRC that assumes every opinion they formulate as the consensus of the community in general? Or just something you happened to find out online, and felt it rang true for your own personal endeavors, and needs to be expressed to others?

I ask this because now I’m trying to analyze how those roots that has led you to say these things has any merit in a forum where people should be aware that these are just heuristic/learning tools until we can find better words to explain the whole phenomenon?

Sands Wrote:There is a reason why a thread had to be made to explain that they didn't mean assume the tulpa is sentient, but rather that you should treat them as if they were such.

You bring up a good topic with blind faith, and I couldn’t agree with you more on how doing something like this can lead to someone’s psyche/mind shattering into pieces if they don’t have a large threshold for resilience, and trying to salvage any practical hope from learning from their mistakes, but this makes me raise several questions.

- I understand what you mean by the thread with the assuming sentience, and possible misinterpretations of it (which could be summed down to people who just believe, but don’t have a direct means of approaching and making things more interactive, i.e., lazy assess with high levels of faith). But how can a person not see that by assuming someone as sentient, it would naturally make them inclined to find ways to treat them as such?

- You make good points on a possible trend a person may go through, but wouldn’t treating them as sentient entities reach a similar, if not, greater doubting on what they’re doing in general? Think of it this way; even if someone collects a set of methods, sees them as something to loosely go by, and hopefully create a base that they personally use and derive from, and makes some breakthroughs with it, what about people questioning “Even though I’m expressing, behaving/treating, and doing things in ways to treat them as sentient, I’m still not seeing anything happening…”

- I say this merely because just saying “treating” doesn’t mean the newcomer, or anyone of any level of experiential circumstances with tulpas will have less doubting compared to “assuming”. I’d present reason that them having to treat, and go out of their way in behaving/dealing in a certain way would augment the skepticism and critical nature we may have when first understanding about tulpas in general if they can't have an influential foundation to keep them going.

Just like you stated with people that have nothing to fall on (e.g. metaphorical safety net, influential basis to keep them going), why should the guide in particular have to extend on this? Now, I understand that they should change their terminology to make things less forced on, no question about that, but even if they do this, it only makes me think that people reading this should expand their knowledge in understanding the philosophy, and all that mumbo jumbo when it comes to beliefs with tulpas through other guide submissions (especially those with the tag “Sentience”).

It’s just like what you referred to with subconscious and unconscious (them being the same thing, but ultimately falling apart if taken too seriously; I feel you presume the individual will always take the words too seriously), and their apparent ban (which I find questionable) in having any potential to conceptualize what we presume how the mind works. Because if we presume that a person assuming will not be naturally inclined to find ways to treat/behave in a certain way in their journey in creating a servitor, or tulpa, it’s creating a false dichotomy on whether or not we’re naturally intertwined with our emotions that makes us have several dispositions.

In other words, it seems that you’re presuming that “assuming” won’t make someone to be predisposed in behaving in a way to sustain those beliefs they want to come true. This is why the self-fulfilling prophecy with the treating them as sentient can go both ways; if the person doesn’t have a basis to fall on, like you stated, it turns into a snowball effect of doubting, no question on that. But if they acknowledge how they personally define what it means to be sentient, and engaging, and behaving/treating in ways around the people we meet day-to-day, the probability of them having that extreme level of doubt where they can’t salvage any hope seems unlikely when their source of inspirations is right in front of their face (e.g. what they’ve been doing in their lives with others).

Because if the guide submission has to wrap around that, it’ll become more than a servitor submission, and honestly, it would further my points on OP trying to make a distinction between a servitor and tulpa. If anything from my previous post, if OP is emphasizing a servitor to be a thought repeater, why do they need to be obligated to explain philosophy behind sentience when the overall premise is to confine the meaning of servitor in being adept in processing and organizing cognitive skills and abilities?

Sands Wrote:Even little things like wondering if it was me or them comes from somewhere, as we normally don't doubt the source of our own actions, do we? How do you realize it's the servitor and not you?

That’s the beauty of it all; trying to map out what it means to be ourselves as host, what it means to validate our existence, and knowing certain actions are our own vs. our tulpas, and not just some combination of predispositions turned into symbolic meaning to make it feel it could be them, and much more (but it could be that, who knows?). Again, more philosophical inquiry may be useful in this submission, but I feel that making threads to throw around theories and such would do more good, and if that ever happens, maybe this guide submission can link to those threads/future guide submissions for further analysis.

It’s just that I feel you’re piling a lot of burden to the OP on topics that I’m sure everyone feels is a challenge to assess in general. I see this submission more on motivating others to crack down on group thinking, and formulate those set of theories that could be plausible if we tie them to circumstances, anecdotes, and what have you, albeit through other threads.

Note: This isn't me trying to create a debate, just acknowledging the understanding of the same trickiness in handling submissions like this that begs for the forum to make threads on explaining more through theories and such rather than guide submissions being too grandiose that they forget their overall premise.

Thank you for the comments Sands. I have a lot of ideas for changes. What you brought up about puppetting vs. willing a servitor into existence reminded me of how a few people got autopilot servitors on accident (willing it to happen but not doing the puppetting and being surprised when it happens) and I seem to be getting one recently. Now that I think about it, the whole puppetting thing is the brute force method for when willing it fails. Good points on the symbolism I missed. On the wording with subconsious, I can probably come up with something better. I still need to think about the belief stuff a bit more. And yes, I do intend it to be readable and to spread it among more than one community. So far, this is the only place it is posted, though. Getting it worked on here because the GAT can be useful on these things and I don't want to share it elsewhere till it is polished up. Of course, it could be argued that modifications for other communities should come afterwards.

Linkzelda, on the stuff you have brought up, I have been doing a lot more research, so that is why I haven't put up a new version. Trying to dig through a lot of material.

Hopefully, I will have a new version within a week.

- Hail

Tri = {V, O, G}, Ice and Frostbite and Breach (all formerly Hail), and others
System Name: Fall Family
Former Username: hail_fall
Contributor and administrator on a supplementary tulpamancy resource and associated forum, Tulpa.io and Tulpa.io/discuss/.

Sorry for taking a while to reply, I have been pretending to have a life. I hope you were convinced and I hope you weren't waiting for a speedy reply because hey, this stuff is off-topic and all right? No need to read my tl;dr Hail, but hope you don't mind if we talk about something else here.

Now. We have talked about the term "subconscious" before and you agreed with what I said back then. I can't remember what it was exactly so I can't avoid talking of the same things, as I'll assume those things might still hold up and all. But I'll try to take another way of looking it and be really thorough, alright?

The term "the subconscious" or "your subconscious" – or "unconscious" if you would like to use that, I'll be using subconscious here – already has some implications as a term. One, it makes it a singular thing, one group or something that can be labeled under the same name. Two, it makes it something that is separate from you, something you can't perceive or control. And sometimes, three, we give it a personality with likes and dislikes and the such ("your subconscious is stopping you from achieving your goal"). This all is without any supernatural or new age stuff. When I say "entity", it might not mean anything metaphysical or magical: it's just the best way I can say that we are making "the subconscious" sound like another separate creature in our heads by making is a single thing, or perhaps a place in our brain that has all these things we're not conscious of happening.

Then there is the issue of definitions. What is "the subconscious"? What does this writer mean when they use the word? Do they mean some magical entity, following the new age ways? If not, what is included in it? Our unconscious thoughts, fears and desires? Our memories? Our muscle memory? All those little things we do without noticing ourselves but others might perceive them? Our instincts? When does it stop being a part of "the subconscious"? Once we are consciously focusing on them? Then things would be moving rather fluidly from our conscious mind to this unconscious mind, as we can only consciously focus on few things at a time. I think of thing x for a moment consciously, then I stop thinking of it but maybe I keep thinking of it unconsciously. It would not be a part of "the subconscious" – except once I start thinking of it again. Should this kind of fluidity still allow us to draw a straight line where this "the subconscious" starts?

What about our fears? If I have an unconscious fear but feel the fear consciously but don't know what is making it happen, is this fear a part of my "subconscious" or not? I can feel the fear, so it is conscious. But the reason of my fear is unconscious. Where does it belong? Both? Then my "subconscious" would be affecting my conscious mind in ways that it seems like it is just an important part of what makes me as my conscious mind. Should I try to separate them when it seems like they both are what makes "me"? Is trying to lump everything we do unconsciously under one simple term an oversimplification of our complicate minds?

The term does not have a single definition. Asking the author what they mean is a good thing in those cases, as it's not obvious. If I wanted you to give a single definition to a word out of context, you would ask if I mean a noun or a verb if I gave you the word "whistle", right? It's not automatically apparent, so you would have to ask to make sure.

We don't know enough of our minds to say if there is or is not a "subconscious". We know we have many unconscious things going on in our heads, but is this all supposed to be "the subconscious"? I don't think we know enough to be able to group things like these together in a way like this. Gravity and evolution are both theories, but they are theories that have some proof. "The subconscious" is a theory that still has no proof, as we are having quite a lot of trouble proving this kind of things. I'm one that doesn't even call tuppers "sapient" outright, as I can't know for sure: for me, they are certainly supposed to seem like they are sapient beings. But I can't say they are or aren't for certain.

I would also like to challenge the way people throw the word "subconscious" around so casually, as if it is some accepted fact. It isn't. Not only does it have many potentially confusing definitions, it's a theory without much merit. People still claim things like "wow humans only use 10% of their brain!!!" which we know is false. When people read things other smart-sounding people have written, they tend to accept it as the truth without questioning it. By having others use the term "the subconscious", I feel that we are fooling people into thinking that it is a real, accepted thing when we honestly don't even know if it exists or not.

It can be some useful symbolism, which I'm sure you know due to your hypnosis experience. A hypnotist could tell their client that the reason they haven't had any success themselves is because their "subconscious" held them back, but now they're going to change their "subconscious" so the person can change or something. But it can also be a negative thing if you give it so much power and tell people they are weaker than it and can't affect it themselves.

Now, for the "treat them as if they were sentient" tip and why it is preferred over "assume that they are sentient" tip. This has nothing to do with servitors either as it's a tupper tip, but hey. More textwalls, right?

There are a couple of reasons why treating tuppers as such is better than assuming such. These are things I have noticed many times when people have assumed:

1. People think that because they assume the tulpa to be sentient (sapient might be the better word here, but seeing how sentient and sapient are basically used to mean the same thing these days, I don't think I can argue against that anymore) it truly is sentient. Right from the start, day one, second 1. But because it doesn't talk back or move, they parrot and puppet it – while saying it is the tulpa and that it's sentient. This can make people think that tulpa is nothing but this, it's "sentient" but it's just a puppet. It can also set people back as they keep parroting and puppeting without letting the tupper actually do things on their own. I'm sure that it's possible to get out of this eventually, but these people seem to me like they leave the community rather early.

2. People realize they have never challenged their tuppers. They might have gotten far along, have tulpas with their own opinion and personality and they talk back and everything. But the host has always believed and assumed and trusted without any doubts. Now they suddenly do have that one little doubt surface. "What if they aren't?", "I have always just thought they were, but what if they aren't?". This has happened many times. People end up challenging their tulpas, but then they start too harsh because they need this proof to get rid of their doubts, nothing less works. This is often where the tulpas end up failing, but if they do succeed... Well, the host will most likely move the goalposts until they're basically asking for a fully imposed tupper without enough work put into it. When it doesn't happen, welp, tupper wasn't real, time to quit and abandon.

It's really hard to get out of this, I have seen so many people fail. I think I know at least one person who got out of it, but that's among countless of others that failed and never got back up. It's possible that people will assume that tuppers are sentient and then end up going far without any issues, but that starts to seem like a minority to me.

It's good to be skeptical and challenging, but it's important to not be too harsh and just ignore everything outright or say it wasn't good enough. If it feels like it wasn't enough then hey, then it wasn't, but it's not proof that the tupper isn't sapient yet. I feel like the hosts that haven't assumed and have actually worked together to gain trust are the ones that do the best. The ones that have had challenges and have managed to overcome them tend to have an easier time later on, even if they didn't have the "easy" start of assuming.

Then there's the point of "why is treating them as sentient good, then?". Here's some reasons why I think the tip is good, heavily based on theories based on shit I have seen:

1. It's polite. We don't know if tuppers are sapient or not, just like we don't know when they would become sapient if they are. I don't know for certain that you are sapient either, as I don't know what is going on inside your head. I am still going to treat you as such, as nothing is worse than treating a living creature like they are an object. Well, maybe there are some things, but to this sapient creature it would be pretty awful and cruel.

2. Placebo/nocebo thing. I feel this is the same reason why narration works. You treat a possibly non-sapient thing like it was sapient, to kind of confuse your mind or something. Why would a sane person treat something non-sapient like it was sapient? That's crazy, it can't happen! Clearly that then means it has to be sapient, so it ends up becoming sapient just like a cube of sugar can cure your pain. Narration has the same idea behind it, talk to something that isn't there so that it starts being there. There have been cases where tuppers have ended up being pretty sapient despite their hosts not thinking that's even possible, but for many people that might end up being an impossible barrier. How could something become sapient when you don't even think it might be that? It seems to me like it's fooling ourselves in a good way, in a way that actually makes this possible and creates something out of nothing – or at least something that seems like it is there.

Okay, I hope I got at least most of it out of the way.

The THE SUBCONCIOUS ochinchin occultists frt.sys (except Roswell because he doesn't want to be a part of it)

Cool exposition, Sands, and thanks for clarifying. If anything, this will help the OP mix around with how to format their guide submission. And I wasn't expecting a speedy reply, as I'm sure things like you've stated is what can really help as some foundation for others making guide submissions that can be tricky at times. You may think it's off topic, but this is the type of information that's golden, and can really let people know you're not trying to be an elitist, or anything like that.

I'll just hop off the questions, and wish the OP the best in their submission.